Re: THEORY: questions
| From: | J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 3:59 |
|---|
In a message dated 22.10.2001 02:28:52 AM, christophe.grandsire@FREE.FR
writes:
>I usually begin with sounds (how my language will sound like, which sounds
>are possible, which combinations of sounds are possible) then with grammar,
>and then only I begin thinking of the lexicon. I feel I need the grammar to
>be settled down to be able to come up with words. I also love making
grammars,
>but find making words a burden. That's why my languages usually have very
small
>lexicons.
>
I used to concentrate heavily on syntax 1st with semantics and words 2nd.
But now I am just as concerned with phonology and orthography.
I find it is more fun and easier to model phonology and orthography on
Nat'Langs (esp'ly as I am quite fond of Italian, techno-scientific "Greco"
and Pali - the Prakit-spawn of Sanskrit, for instance. I have a very
pronounced ConLang preference for the Roman alphabet or a re-designed Roman
alphabet). _Mutatis Mutandi_, syntax and semantics on Nat'Langs (i.e.,
pidgins, creoles, Archaic & Classical Chinese, and Bahasa Indonesia, etc..).
I have learned a lot on this list & continue to do so...
a gratefully obsessive conlanger,
czHANg